User:Vrwebre/Evaluate an Article
 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.
Sources and ReferencesA Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. |
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I have selected this article to evaluate because I am interested in the topic. The article refers to "Fake News" and is a adequate article to evaluate because every article that is released to the public referring to topics anywhere from sports to politics can indeed have misguiding information. It is sort of a evaluation inside an evaluation regarding my article I have selected.
Lead section
[edit]A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.
The introductory sentence draws you in and hooks you because it is right to the point as it uses a definition regarding "Fake News." The lead paragraph is able to explain the history and the reason regarding the use of fake news in the world such as "damaging the reputation of a person or entity, or making money through advertising revenue." However, it does not mention much out of the scope of politics with the use of fake news as it is actually possible through many topics besides politics. The lead is very concise given the detailed article that follows with a more in depth explanation regarding fake news.
Content
[edit]A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Fake news is in fact utilized in various ways, newspapers, blogs, vlogs, tv, etc. and regard a way of gaining a positive for one side but doing it in a negative way both illegally and/or non-morally to get ahead. The creation of a combat force recently in 2016 since the uphill raise of fake news not slowing down anytime soon is covered in this article and explains of the identification, counteracting, and use of fake news. The information ranges from 1890s-modern time and even uses history that can date back to 13th century B.C. The article covers keep components and dives deeper into each subcategory from the main topics. This does not only include the United States but all around the world past, present, future.
Tone and Balance
[edit]Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.
The article is neutral regarding race, gender, and ethnic background in the controversy of who does and who receives fake news on an everyday basis. The claims that are used in this article are heavily biased to the fact fake news is seen more now than it ever was and politics is a standing operating platform that uses news channels to make people believe one side over the other by misleading information. For most the article the viewpoint spread to what the lead presented which was the damaging effects of fake news and how to identify and deal with it when one is a witness to it. The article is most definitely leaned for those apposed to fake news and for those that want the truth on every platform.
Sources and References
[edit]A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.
The facts in this article is backed by over four hundred references that are most if not all credited to those that have studied different aspects of fake news in the world. The references are thorough given each identifying topic regarding the available literature in each category such as history, social media, types of fake news, damage of fake news, etc. to name a few topics. The sources date back to 2016 at the latest and have more recent articles such as 2022. The sources are written by a diverse group of authors from all over and include peer-reviewed articles that relate to the topic of fake news which is a hot topic in modern times.
Organization and writing quality
[edit]The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
The article is written very detailed and answer the variety of questions that a reader may possess to said topic. The grammar, spelling and punctuation is up to par. The well-organized article is broken down in sequence to what, why, when, where, how and posses the major points in relation to one another.
Images and Media
[edit]The article possesses images of propaganda, photoshop, and people involved in "Fake News" and are well captured along with being well utilized. This images are written with what source they have came from and are put next to the sections that mention that subcategory of the major topic at hand.
Talk page discussion
[edit]The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.
The conversations are more-so related to the opinions on how fake news is perceived more than what it is itself. There is also a belief that the study was only asked to five hundred German residents and was not credible enough to use in the public outlook part of the article. The article is a C-Class rated article and part of many WikiProjects. The mention of fake news is similar to the way we have talked about it in class and can be related to the use of the CRAAP test that is not really mentioned in this article.
Overall impressions
[edit]The article was a very well-detailed article to "Fake News" and does lean to the opposition of the topic as a whole helping with the defense to those wanting truth in what we hear and see on a regular basis. the article was able to tell me all I needed to know regarding how to identify it and act on it when portrayed it. The weakness of theism article could have explained fake news in different aspects of life besides mostly politics. The "Fake News" article is a very well-organized article that can use minor tweaks but overall is very well done.